Subject: Call for WG Adoption of draft-polk-tsvwg-intserv-multiple-tspec-06

From: Gorry Fairhurst <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 09:32:13 +0100

The authors of "IntServ Extension to Allow Signaling of Multiple Traffic 
Specifications and Multiple Flow Specifications in RSVPv1" 
(draft-polk-tsvwg-intserv-multiple-tspec) requests that this is adopted 
as WG item.

    This draft defines extensions to Integrated Services (IntServ)
    allowing  multiple traffic specifications and multiple flow
    specifications to be conveyed in the same Resource Reservation
    Protocol (RSVPv1) reservation message exchange. This ability helps
    optimize an agreeable bandwidth through a network between endpoints
    in a single round trip

There was hum indicating general WG support for this at the last IETF in 
Prague. I applied to the AD to amend our Charter to allow this work, 
which was approved. So we are now ready to make a formal decision and 
this email is to allow people to confirm that there is sufficient energy 
to complete this work in TSVWG.

* PLEASE send an email to this list if you think adopting this document 
in TSVWG is a good or bad idea.

* Please also indicate if you are willing to REVIEW such a document 
during its development - our AD has indicated that we expect to have at 
least 4 people who commit to review this within the WG, perform a 
detailed review in WGLC and provide appropriate comments if called upon 
during the IESG review. If you can promise to do this please say!

Please provide any comments at the latest by Wednesday 29th June 2011.

Best regards

Gorry Fairhurst
(TSVWG Co-Chair)

---

From: Bruce Davie <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 08:24:30 -0400

On Jun 20, 2011, at 4:32 AM, Gorry Fairhurst wrote:

> The authors of "IntServ Extension to Allow Signaling of Multiple Traffic Specifications and Multiple Flow Specifications in RSVPv1" (draft-polk-tsvwg-intserv-multiple-tspec) requests that this is adopted as WG item.
> 
> There was hum indicating general WG support for this at the last IETF in Prague. I applied to the AD to amend our Charter to allow this work, which was approved. So we are now ready to make a formal decision and this email is to allow people to confirm that there is sufficient energy to complete this work in TSVWG.
> 
> 
> * PLEASE send an email to this list if you think adopting this document in TSVWG is a good or bad idea.

Good idea (I'm sure my view will come as a shock)

> 
> * Please also indicate if you are willing to REVIEW such a document during its development - our AD has indicated that we expect to have at least 4 people who commit to review this within the WG, perform a detailed review in WGLC and provide appropriate comments if called upon during the IESG review. If you can promise to do this please say!
> 

I will provide (another) review.

Bruce

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 09:07:20 -0400

Gorry,
	See below.

> in TSVWG is a good or bad idea.

a good idea.

> during the IESG review. If you can promise to do this please say!

I'm willing.  (I have already provided some comments off line that I
look forward to discussing on-list, assuming the draft becomes a WG
document.)

Lou

---

From: Francois Le Faucheur <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 15:56:30 +0200

Hello Gorry,

It is a good idea.
As you know I already provided comments on this doc, but I will review it again during its development. In fact, it is on my ToDo list before Quebec City meeting.

Thanks

Francois

---

From: ken carlberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 10:03:52 -0400

Hi Gorry,

Its a good idea, and the list already has my detailed comments.

cheers,

-ken

---

From: Janet P Gunn <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 11:23:40 -0400

Good idea.
Janet

This is a PRIVATE message. If you are not the intended recipient, please 
delete without copying and kindly advise us by e-mail of the mistake in 
delivery. 
NOTE: Regardless of content, this e-mail shall not operate to bind CSC to 
any order or other contract unless pursuant to explicit written agreement 
or government initiative expressly permitting the use of e-mail for such 
purpose.

From:
Gorry Fairhurst <[email-masked]>
To:
tsvwg WG <[email-masked]>
Cc:
"James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date:
06/20/2011 04:33 AM
Subject:
Call for WG Adoption of draft-polk-tsvwg-intserv-multiple-tspec-06

Best regards

Gorry Fairhurst
(TSVWG Co-Chair)

---

From: [email-masked] (Scott O. Bradner)
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 12:54:34 -0400 (EDT)

> in TSVWG is a good or bad idea.

I think it is a good (long delayed) idea

> during its development 

I am

Scott

---

From: "Mcdysan, David E" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 10:03:21 -0400

>to complete this work in TSVWG.

I think this is a good idea. It is a potential solution to some
requirements for composite links soon to be published by the rtgwg. These
extensions could be used in RSVP-TE to meet these requirements.

>during the IESG review. If you can promise to do this please say!

I can be a reviewer.

---

From: Randy Stewart <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2011 18:30:40 -0400

+1

(and yes I would be willing to review the document)

R

>> * Please also indicate if you are willing to REVIEW such a document 

-----
Randall Stewart
[email-masked]